Michael, I am quite willing to quit this discussion. Just for the record,
though, my impression has been that the discussion has been improving in
tone as we have moved on. Sure some people have made some sharp points,
toyed with personal digs etc; but, through it all, I think, we have been
clarifying some points; in my last messages (responses to doug henwood and
ken Hanly) I even conceded that my positions had not been significantly
nuanced and qualified (e.g., my unqualified portrayal of traditional
leftists). Ther discussion has taken a lot of time, set me back on some
things; but I think it has been going for the better, which is very good
result.
All of the above, of course, is about the substantive dicussion; not about
the personal attacks on Resnick and Wolff (and perhaps my responses). I
would hate to have that exchange sour the pomo discussion by association;
and I hope that all the critics of pomo, even those who mocked IT as a
discourse, will not have their participation in this discussion soured by
the association with these personal attacks. I certainly differentiate
between the discussion and these personal attacks.
Antonio
>Let us put the pomo discussion to rest. More harm has been done than
>information shared in the last posts.
>
>For newcomers, we have put discussion of Israel on hold, for similar
>reasons.
>
>The personal is not political, at least as far as this discussion has
>gone.
>
>I guess we can conclude, that some people feel that pomo has furthered
>their political work; others, that it is irrelevant or even a
>distraction.
>
>Let the pomos pomo and the others go their own way; let 1000 floowers
>bloom. But enough of the insult and innuendo.
>
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 916-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari
939 Martha Ave
Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone 717 397-3228
FAX 717 397-1790
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
